Fantastic article! One point I've read elsewhere is that successful Islamic terrorists are a single-use resource, what with their habit of killing themselves during the attack. This means all their terrorism skills are lost with the successful attack, and the pool of competent terrorists shrinks. Not to mention, the wealth of experience and on-the-ground information is lost as well.
The people with the knowledge are the bombmakers etc; the people carrying the bombs need very little knowledge apart from "push the button at the right time".
Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
21–30 of 101 posts
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#22Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessness of the TSA rather than just talking about it.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#23I wish we could get rid of the TSA and spend that resources somewhere else, CIA, FBI, NSA, hell send it to DoE, NSF, maybe fund (more) research in practical(?) renewable energy. But killing the TSA is never going to happen. No career politician is going to commit political harikiri to shut it down. - I do not mind the free hand rubs at the airports though.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people with the knowledge are the bombmakers etc; the people carrying the bombs need very little knowledge apart from "push the button at the right time".
The most successful terrorist attacks against the US did not use bombs, they used commodity weapons and teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training.
The folks who ran that training are still alive.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#25Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#26Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#27The Department of Homeland Security's FY11 budget authority was around $56 bil. The TSA only accounted for 14% of that money. [1]
Just for perspective -- top 5 slices of DHS's FY11 pie: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (20%), U.S. Coast Guard (18%), Transportation Security Administration (14%), Federal Emergency Management Agency (12%), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (10%).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the TSA... I think we all feel a little silly as grownups waiting around in a security line in our socks. But I don't think all the hand waving about "security theater" is really justified. And there are probably quite a few things that fall under "homeland security" that aren't so controversial. Disaster response? Maritime search and rescue? Enforcement of fisheries conservation regulations? Border protection?
[1] All numbers from DHS's "FY 2011 Budget in Brief"
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most successful terrorist attacks against the US did not use bombs, they used commodity weapons and teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training.
> teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training. The folks who ran that training are still alive.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#29This article makes some big leaps. It says in the fourth paragraph: "Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent more than $1.1 trillion on homeland security." It seems to imply that this is mostly because of wasteful TSA-like spending. The Department of Homeland Security's FY11 budget authority was around $56 bil. The TSA only accounted for 14% of that money. [1] Just for perspective -- top 5 slices of DHS's FY11 pie: U.S. Custo…
Katrina showed many of the problems with FEMA, though it seems to have improved since then. I'm not sure why enforcement of fisheries conservation belongs under DHS, and as someone who does a good bit of offshore fishing I'm not very happy with they way they over-regulate/enforce on recreational fishermen who would have a hard time making a dent in most populations while (seemingly) turning a blind eye to commercial efforts destroying them.
Others I don't have any insight into, but it seems that DHS has mostly the creation of a huge number of bureaucrats who's major responsibilities involve insuring that the money allotted is spend so that the same or more can be requested for the next fiscal year, with the actual agencies under it getting a smaller piece of the pie and more barriers to actually doing work than before.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#30I don't understand. The agents at the gate always check the boarding pass validity (with the code scanner) and check the name on it against my ID. I haven't tried it but i can imagine that the system wouldn't allow two boarding passes with the same code. Is it that here in Europe we do things properly or did I misunderstood the faking of the boarding pass?
Your boarding pass is scanned by a barcode reader, and the computer does seem to pick up invalid passes, but I don't think that is the point.
The TSA has made some kind of a big deal about only allowing "ticketed passengers" into the gate areas. However, their check of this comes down to ensuring you have a piece of ID that matches the name on a piece of paper you bring from home.
To use an example from the story, you could have 20 people who are not travelers each smuggle a component of a bob through security (a portion of a liquid, ptex, etc.) and then give those components to a single flyer with a valid ticket (who would have presumably gone through security with NO contraband at all, so as not to burn his identity if he accidentally went through a line with an alert agent).
There is also the simple matter of basic vulnerability testing. If you have to spend $500 on a ticket to get a trip through the TSA line, it's very costly to test the edges of the system. If you can go through the line 4x per day at 3 different airport terminals, or multiple airports that are in close proximity to each other, then you can easily run 100 test scenarios in a week about how the lines are managed, processed, etc.
As an example, I travel frequently and don't like dealing with the full-body scanners. In most airports at the busy times they "randomly" select some passengers to just go through the metal detectors because the body-radiators are slow. With about 80% accuracy I can watch how the lines are being handled and time my fiddling around with items on the xray belt to be "randomly" selected to skip the full body scanner. It takes a few cycles of observation to start to see the patterns though.